WHEN WE ALL GET TO HEAVEN, WHAT A DAY OF REJOICING THAT WILL BE?

[StanJ]

From where did you gain that information? You did not refer to the content of what I wrote.

The fact that this book of Ecclesiastes is contained in the OT indicates that it is God-breathed Scripture (2 Tim 3:16-17). Even though it is a view from 'under the sun' (Eccl. 1:3), it comes with the stamp of God's authority on it.

The fact remains that this is what happens at death: 'the dust returns to the earth as it was [the human body], and the spirit returns to God' (Eccl 12:7). This is confirmed by Paul, 'away from the body and at home with the Lord' (2 Cor 5:8 ESV). To the Philippians he wrote: 'My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better' (Phil 1:23 ESV).

Oz

From years of study Oz, just like you.

So you're advocating /asserting that there is NO negative content in scripture? Did you read the first four verses of Ecclesiastes 1? Do you agree that life is meaningless and that the earth remains forever? Do you accept that the sun hurries around the earth to rise everyday?
Come on Oz....I expected far more proper exegesis from you then you evidence here.
As far as 2 COR 5:8 is concerned, what Paul states as a desire does in no way imply what you assert. He knew full well we would only see Jesus when He returned, as he states throughout his letters. Inferring what you do into this verse is NOT supportable. Both verses refer to Paul's desire, NOT what will happen when He dies. The same holds true for Heb 9:27...because we do not get judged immediately after we die, anymore than we see Jesus or God after we die.

http://www.truthaboutdeath.com/q-and-a/id/1601/doesnt-paul-say-that-to-be-absent-from-the-body-is-to-be-present-with-the-lord

 

[OzSpen]

From years of study Oz, just like you.

So you're advocating /asserting that there is NO negative content in scripture? Did you read the first four verses of Ecclesiastes 1? Do you agree that life is meaningless and that the earth remains forever? Do you accept that the sun hurries around the earth to rise everyday?
Come on Oz....I expected far more proper exegesis from you then you evidence here.
As far as 2 COR 5:8 is concerned, what Paul states as a desire does in no way imply what you assert. He knew full well we would only see Jesus when He returned, as he states throughout his letters. Inferring what you do into this verse is NOT supportable. Both verses refer to Paul's desire, NOT what will happen when He dies. The same holds true for Heb 9:27...because we do not get judged immediately after we die, anymore than we see Jesus or God after we die.

http://www.truthaboutdeath.com/q-and-a/id/1601/doesnt-paul-say-that-to-be-absent-from-the-body-is-to-be-present-with-the-lord

Stan,

You are inventing a straw man fallacy again. You state: 'So you're advocating /asserting that there is NO negative content in scripture?' At no place in my post did I state that. You're into eisegesis of my post. If you continue to do this to me, I'll not be replying to you. When you use logical fallacies, it makes it impossible to have a logical discussion with you.

Eccl 1:1-4 (NIV) reads:

The words of the Teacher, son of David, king in Jerusalem:

2 “Meaningless! Meaningless!”
says the Teacher.
“Utterly meaningless!
Everything is meaningless.”


3 What do people gain from all their labors
at which they toil under the sun?
4 Generations come and generations go,
but the earth remains forever.

'Everything is meaningless' is the view from the perspective of those who 'toil under the sun' (1;3). The RSV translates v. 2 as, 'Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher, vanity of vanities! All is vanity'. That seems like a fair estimate of the world if one is looking at it from a secular point of view, i.e. 'under the sun'. However, this is also the view expressed in Ps 90:3-10; 102:24-26; 35:5ff; Gen 5:29; 47:9. Solomon is affirming what is stated elsewhere in the OT.

The word translated as 'vanity' or 'meaningless' is hebhel. What does it mean? Hebrew exegete H C Leupold explained:

The exact force of the word "vanity" (used thirty-one times in the book - BDB) must be ascertained most carefully. We have retained the traditional rendering "vanity of vanities," but this was done because it is the least objectionable of the available translations. The word "vanity," hebhel, really means a "vapor" or "breath," something like the breath that condenses as we exhale into the cold winter air, condenses and disappears at once. Now the point is, shall hebhel be translated "transitoriness" or "vanity"? Does it refer to that which is fleeting or to that which is utterly futile? That latter connotation is the one usually associated with the English term "vanity" in connections such as these.
It is our conviction that hebhel connotes primarily that which is fleeting and transitory and also suggests the partial futility of human effort. Certainly, to construe that the verse in such a way as to make it mean practically that life is futile and utterly empty would mean to put a pessimistic meaning into the term that is not warranted by facts. The word emphasizes rather how evanescent earthly things are, how swiftly they pass away, and how little they offer while one has them (Leupold 1969:40-41)

So, Stan, the exegesis of the term 'meaningless' or 'vanity' is not what you want to make it. More than that, I was dealing with Eccl 12:7 and not with Eccl 1:1-4. When I do the hard yakka with accurate exegesis of Eccl 1:1-4, I do not conclude as you do. I urge you not to accuse me about information that has no basis in fact when compared with what you posted. Your straw man included imposing on me the need to exegete Eccl 1;1-4 when I did not mention it.

Stan, you have demonstrated what happens when you try to exegete the OT from an English translation with your statement from Eccl 1:4 (NIV), 'the earth remains forever'. The earth remaining forever means nothing more than

the earth is the permanent ground on which this coming and this going of generations actually takes place.
The connection being what it is, there cannot be an assertion here about the eternal duration of the earth, for the expression "forever" (le'olam) is frequently very relative in its meaning and here signifies little more than "a good long while." One need not, therefore, fear that this verse contradicts Ps. 102:25f. - "Generation" (dor) being the new and important issue in the thought development, though a noun here stands first in the sentence (Leupold1969:45).

You state, 'Do you accept that the sun hurries around the earth to rise everyday?' You are referring to Eccl 1:5 (NIV) that states, 'The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises'. That is a perspectival observation for any human being and when Solomon gives his human view of life 'under the sun', that is an accurate view of what human beings see. It is not meant to be a scientific explanation that would satisfy the demands of cosmologists. Ecclesiastes is referring to 'the ceaseless round of rising, setting,and hastening back to the starting point' (Leupold 1969:46).

Stan, I think you ought to quit bragging about your exegetical prowess. You have failed in your examination of these passages from Eccl 1:1-4.

As for 2 Cor 5:8 (NIV), the souls of believers go immediately into God’s presence. What Paul asserts as a desire would make no sense in the God-breathed Scriptures if that is not what happens at death. Your view lacks biblical exegesis. Evangelical theologian, Wayne Grudem, explains:

Death is a temporary cessation of bodily life and a separation of the soul from the body. Once a believer has died, though his or her physical body remains on the earth and is buried, at the moment of death the soul (or spirit) of that believer goes immediately into the presence of God with rejoicing. When Paul thinks about death he says, “We would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord” (2 Cor 5:8). To be away from the body is to be at home with the Lord. He also says that his desire is “to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better” (Phil 1.23). And Jesus said to the thief who was dying on the cross next to him, “Today you will be with me in paradise” (Lk 23:43), The author of Hebrews says that when Christians come together to worship they come not only into the presence of God in heaven, but also into the presence of “the spirits of just men made perfect” (Heb 12:23).... God will not leave our dead bodies in the earth forever, for when Christ returns the souls of believers will be reunited with their bodies, their bodies will be raised from the dead, and they will live with Christ eternally…. (Grudem 1994:816-817).

As for Heb 9:27 (NIV), it states, 'Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment'. What do you want that to mean? You state: 'we do not get judged immediately after we die, anymore than we see Jesus or God after we die'. This plainly is a false statement. Nowhere in Heb 9:27 (NIV) does it state that people will be be 'judged immediately after we die'. That is your invention. It's eisegesis with your imposing your beliefs on the text. Heb 9:27 (NIV) does state that people will die once and after that face judgment but nowhere does this verse state when that judgment will happen after death. Nowhere. That really is very poor exegesis by you, Stan.

This is another false statement by you: We will not 'see Jesus or God after we die'. Jesus proved you wrong when he said to the thief beside him, 'Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise"' (Luke 23:43 NIV). At death, the thief 'saw' Jesus because he was with Jesus. We know from 2 Cor 5:8 that Paul would be 'absent from the body and present with the Lord'. In Phil 1:23 (ESV) Paul affirms his desire to 'depart and be with Christ, that is better by far' rather than remain on earth. His desire would be pointless if such a reality of dying and being with Christ was not a possibility. When Stephen was being stoned, he 'gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God... And as they were stoning Stephen, he called out, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit' (Acts 7:55, 59 ESV). When was the Lord Jesus? He was standing at the right hand of God, so Stephen at death had his spirit received by the Lord Jesus.

The exegetical evidence from OT and NT overwhelms your false position, Stan, that believers do not go directly into the Lord's presence at death. At death believers go into the Lord's presence and their bodies rot in the grave (returning to dust) only to be resurrected at Christ's second coming when the resurrected body will be joined with the spirit (1 Cor 15).

Before Christ’s resurrection, both believers and unbelievers went to Sheol/Hades – two separate places in that location (see Isa 14:9-20; 44:23; Ezek 32:21; Lk 16:22-23). After the resurrection, believers go to be with Christ (Phil. 1:23) which is better than Hades. According to 2 Cor 5:6-9, believers are present with the Lord and are worshipping with the angelic hosts in heaven (Heb. 12:22-23).

Dumbing down my exegesis doesn't work, Stan. You erected a straw man fallacy. I have sound biblical grounds for the position I maintain.

Works consulted
Grudem, W 1994. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.

Leupold, H C 1969. Exposition of Ecclesiastes. London: Evangelical Press/Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House (copyright 1952, The Wartburg Press).

 

[StanJ]

You are inventing a straw man fallacy again. You state: 'So you're advocating asserting that there is NO negative content in scripture?' At no place in my post did I state that. You're into eisegesis of my post. If you continue to do this to me, I'll not be replying to you. When you use logical fallacies, it makes it impossible to have a logical discussion with you
Eccl 1:1-4 (NIV) reads:
'Everything is meaningless' is the view from the perspective of those who 'toil under the sun' (1;3). The RSV translates v. 2 as, 'Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher, vanity of vanities! All is vanity'. That seems like a fair estimate of the world if one is looking at it from a secular point of view, i.e. 'under the sun'. However, this is also the view expressed in Ps 90:3-10; 102:24-26; 35:5ff; Gen 5:29; 47:9. Solomon is affirming what is stated elsewhere in the OT.

Nope, but this is. You disagreed with my premise that Solomon was in a back slidden state, then when I asked you a pertinent question in that regard, you deflect to your usual practise of accusing people of presenting straw men when they aren't. You really have no idea about fallacies at all.
Your logic appears to be a continual effort to AVOID defending your own assertions. I really do wish that if you can't participate in threads normally with me, that you would refrain from answering me.
The teacher is Solomon, and it's his perspective. This was directed at God's people, not unbelievers. Despite your assertions, God does NOT turn anybody into dust, it is a natural process of death and decay. Using this wording in a literal sense only indicates you have a hard time identifying style in the Bible. Whatever the reason, your eisegesis is quite evident. I suppose you also believe God 'knits' human beings together in their mothers womb? You've really gone off the deep end!

So, Stan, the exegesis of the term 'meaningless' or 'vanity' is not what you want to make it. More than that, I was dealing with Eccl 12:7 and not with Eccl 1:1-4. When I do the hard yakka with accurate exegesis of Eccl 1:1-4, I do not conclude as you do. I urge you not to accuse me about information that has no basis in fact when compared with what you posted. Your straw man included imposing on me the need to exegete Eccl 1;1-4 when I did not mention it.

So you really believe, regardless of your equivocation on the meaning, that God is telling us that life is futile? Your conclusions were what I addressed Oz. They aren't eisegesis, they are refutations. Somehow you have this warped sense that only the words you use are correct and cannot be challenged by other thoughts? That type of supercilliousness is beneath you, and it is sure not acceptable to me. You brought up Eccl 1, so deal with the responses and stop all these diversionary tactics.

Stan, you have demonstrated what happens when you try to exegete the OT from an English translation with your statement from Eccl 1:4 (NIV), 'the earth remains forever'. The earth remaining forever means nothing more than.

Funny how you're willing to vascilate on literalness to suit your POV? Despite other opinions, you can't have your cake AND eat it too. Either you are ABLE to see and understand the style Solomon uses, or you're not. Equivocating about it does nothing to enhance your argument. ôlâm In the Hebrew still has the same main connotation as forever here in the future context, that being ~ for ever, always; continuous existence, perpetual; everlasting, indefinite or unending future, eternity.

You state, 'Do you accept that the sun hurries around the earth to rise everyday?' You are referring to Eccl 1:5 (NIV) that states, 'The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises'. That is a perspectival observation for any human being and when Solomon gives his human view of life 'under the sun', that is an accurate view of what human beings see. It is not meant to be a scientific explanation that would satisfy the demands of cosmologists. Ecclesiastes is referring to 'the ceaseless round of rising, setting,and hastening back to the starting point'

My POINT, from my first response to you, is that ALL of Ecclesiastes is 'perspectival observation', as you put it above, so is it factual or not? Seems you've talked you self into agreeing with me? Do you accept what Solomon also states in Eccl 9:5 & 10 as being the truth of God?

Stan, I think you ought to quit bragging about your exegetical prowess. You have failed in your examination of these passages from Eccl 1:1-4.

Based on what Oz? Your equivocal and eisegetical responses? You may want to examine that chip on your shoulder. Seems your recent doctorate has gone to your head?

As for 2 Cor 5:8 (NIV), the souls of believers go immediately into God’s presence. What Paul asserts as a desire would make no sense in the God-breathed Scriptures if that is not what happens at death. Your view lacks biblical exegesis. Evangelical theologian, Wayne Grudem, explains:

So both you and Grudem are wrong and provide NO exegesis for your opinions. You both make assertions with NO support from scriotyre, other than those you both eisegete.

As for Heb 9:27 (NIV), it states, 'Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment'. What do you want that to mean? You state: 'we do not get judged immediately after we die, anymore than we see Jesus or God after we die'. This plainly is a false statement. Nowhere in Heb 9:27 (NIV) does it state that people will be be 'judged immediately after we die'. That is your invention. It's eisegesis with your imposing your beliefs on the text. Heb 9:27 (NIV) does state that people will die once and after that face judgment but nowhere does this verse state when that judgment will happen after death. Nowhere. That really is very poor exegesis by you, Stan.

This response has me scratching my head Oz. I said EXACTLY what you conclude here, it does NOT state we do, so why do you do you assert it is eisegesis?
If you do not understand what I write, then ask. You make you self look very silly ultimately agreeing to what I wrote. If you can't relate it to your premise, how is that my problem? I'm addressing your contentions. This has nothing to do with my poor eisegesis Oz, it has to do with your 'to quick to read and comprehend' style of responding. You're so intent on proving me wrong, that you fail to even properly read what I write.

This is another false statement by you: We will not 'see Jesus or God after we die'. Jesus proved you wrong when he said to the thief beside him, 'Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise"' (Luke 23:43 NIV). At death, the thief 'saw' Jesus because he was with Jesus. We know from 2 Cor 5:8 that Paul would be 'absent from the body and present with the Lord'. In Phil 1:23 (ESV) Paul affirms his desire to 'depart and be with Christ, that is better by far' rather than remain on earth. His desire would be pointless if such a reality of dying and being with Christ was not a possibility. When Stephen was being stoned, he 'gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God... And as they were stoning Stephen, he called out, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit' (Acts 7:55, 59 ESV). When was the Lord Jesus? He was standing at the right hand of God, so Stephen at death had his spirit received by the Lord Jesus.

Yes, He said the thief would, IN paradise, NOT heaven. You also continue to assert Paul was teaching a fact, when all he was doing was conveying his desires to be with Jesus. Stephen SAW, or perceived through a vision. How does one SEE God and Jesus in a non physical dimension? Again your insistence on taking things quite literally is why you have a hard time understanding. This event was no more physical than John seeing the NEW Jerusalem in heaven.

The exegetical evidence from OT and NT overwhelms your false position, Stan, that believers do not go directly into the Lord's presence at death. At death believers go into the Lord's presence and their bodies rot in the grave (returning to dust) only to be resurrected at Christ's second coming when the resurrected body will be joined with the spirit (1 Cor 15).

What evidence. You have distorted what I wrote and what the Bible DOES say. Jesus told the Apostles he would go to prepare a place, NEW Jerusalem, and return to, bring them there to be with Him as we read in John 14:2. How exactly does that work if they are there with Him already?

Before Christ’s resurrection, both believers and unbelievers went to Sheol/Hades – two separate places in that location (see Isa 14:9-20; 44:23; Ezek 32:21; Lk 16:22-23). After the resurrection, believers go to be with Christ (Phil. 1:23) which is better than Hades. According to 2 Cor 5:6-9, believers are present with the Lord and are worshipping with the angelic hosts in heaven (Heb. 12:22-23).

So you think Jesus lied about paradise in Luke 16? You keep claiming these verses confirm what you assert, but you have NOT exegeted as such.

Dumbing down my exegesis doesn't work, Stan. You erected a straw man fallacy. I have sound biblical grounds for the position I maintain.

So I dumbed it down and you still can't address it? How dumbed down do I have to go before you get it? Again I suggest you really learn what a straw man is, as I did NOT write a sham argument set up to be defeated. When you actually DO show sound biblical grounds to support anything, I will let you know.

 

[OzSpen]

Nope, but this is. You disagreed with my premise that Solomon was in a back slidden state, then when I asked you a pertinent question in that regard, you deflect to your usual practise of accusing people of presenting straw men when they aren't. You really have no idea about fallacies at all.
Your logic appears to be a continual effort to AVOID defending your own assertions. I really do wish that if you can't participate in threads normally with me, that you would refrain from answering me.
The teacher is Solomon, and it's his perspective. This was directed at God's people, not unbelievers. Despite your assertions, God does NOT turn anybody into dust, it is a natural process of death and decay. Using this wording in a literal sense only indicates you have a hard time identifying style in the Bible. Whatever the reason, your eisegesis is quite evident. I suppose you also believe God 'knits' human beings together in their mothers womb? You've really gone off the deep end!

So you really believe, regardless of your equivocation on the meaning, that God is telling us that life is futile? Your conclusions were what I addressed Oz. They aren't eisegesis, they are refutations. Somehow you have this warped sense that only the words you use are correct and cannot be challenged by other thoughts? That type of supercilliousness is beneath you, and it is sure not acceptable to me. You brought up Eccl 1, so deal with the responses and stop all these diversionary tactics.

Funny how you're willing to vascilate on literalness to suit your POV? Despite other opinions, you can't have your cake AND eat it too. Either you are ABLE to see and understand the style Solomon uses, or you're not. Equivocating about it does nothing to enhance your argument. ôlâm In the Hebrew still has the same main connotation as forever here in the future context, that being ~ for ever, always; continuous existence, perpetual; everlasting, indefinite or unending future, eternity.

My POINT, from my first response to you, is that ALL of Ecclesiastes is 'perspectival observation', as you put it above, so is it factual or not? Seems you've talked you self into agreeing with me? Do you accept what Solomon also states in Eccl 9:5 & 10 as being the truth of God?

Based on what Oz? Your equivocal and eisegetical responses? You may want to examine that chip on your shoulder. Seems your recent doctorate has gone to your head?

So both you and Grudem are wrong and provide NO exegesis for your opinions. You both make assertions with NO support from scriotyre, other than those you both eisegete.

This response has me scratching my head Oz. I said EXACTLY what you conclude here, it does NOT state we do, so why do you do you assert it is eisegesis?
If you do not understand what I write, then ask. You make you self look very silly ultimately agreeing to what I wrote. If you can't relate it to your premise, how is that my problem? I'm addressing your contentions. This has nothing to do with my poor eisegesis Oz, it has to do with your 'to quick to read and comprehend' style of responding. You're so intent on proving me wrong, that you fail to even properly read what I write.

Yes, He said the thief would, IN paradise, NOT heaven. You also continue to assert Paul was teaching a fact, when all he was doing was conveying his desires to be with Jesus. Stephen SAW, or perceived through a vision. How does one SEE God and Jesus in a non physical dimension? Again your insistence on taking things quite literally is why you have a hard time understanding. This event was no more physical than John seeing the NEW Jerusalem in heaven.

What evidence. You have distorted what I wrote and what the Bible DOES say. Jesus told the Apostles he would go to prepare a place, NEW Jerusalem, and return to, bring them there to be with Him as we read in John 14:2. How exactly does that work if they are there with Him already?

So you think Jesus lied about paradise in Luke 16? You keep claiming these verses confirm what you assert, but you have NOT exegeted as such.

So I dumbed it down and you still can't address it? How dumbed down do I have to go before you get it? Again I suggest you really learn what a straw man is, as I did NOT write a sham argument set up to be defeated. When you actually DO show sound biblical grounds to support anything, I will let you know.

Stan,

There are too many red herring fallacies here in your distortions of what I wrote. I'll leave you to your own ruminations.

Bye, Oz

 

[StanJ]

Stan,
There are too many red herring fallacies here in your distortions of what I wrote. I'll leave you to your own ruminations.
Bye, Oz

RED HERRING
Ignoratio elenchi

(also known as: beside the point, misdirection [form of], changing the subject, false emphasis, the Chewbacca defense, irrelevant conclusion, irrelevant thesis, smokescreen, clouding the issue, ignorance of refutation, judgmental language [form of])

Description: Attempting to redirect the argument to another issue that to which the person doing the redirecting can better respond. While it is similar to the avoiding the issue fallacy, the red herring is a deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument.

Now as I have NOT done this, then your assertions are not only fallacious, but obviously used by you when you actually have no valid response to anyone's point. So by all means, as I've said before, please do stop making invalid assertions and posts you have no desire to actually receive feedback on.

 

[OzSpen]

RED HERRING
Ignoratio elenchi

(also known as: beside the point, misdirection [form of], changing the subject, false emphasis, the Chewbacca defense, irrelevant conclusion, irrelevant thesis, smokescreen, clouding the issue, ignorance of refutation, judgmental language [form of])

Description: Attempting to redirect the argument to another issue that to which the person doing the redirecting can better respond. While it is similar to the avoiding the issue fallacy, the red herring is a deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument.

Now as I have NOT done this, then your assertions are not only fallacious, but obviously used by you when you actually have no valid response to anyone's point. So by all means, as I've said before, please do stop making invalid assertions and posts you have no desire to actually receive feedback on.

Stan,

My assertions about your using a red herring fallacy are not fallacious but are spot on in their truthfulness. I find the following explanation of a red herring fallacy to be more helpful in understanding what you do. Let's examine what you do, based on this explanation of the red herring by the Nizkor Project.

Fallacy: Red Herring ​

Also Known as: Smoke Screen, Wild Goose Chase.

Description of Red Herring

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. Topic A is under discussion.
2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
3. Topic A is abandoned.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.

This is what you do over and over with others and me on this forum. This is an example of Stan's red herring with me, using this Nizkor Project explanation:

1. Oz was discussing topic A: "The fact remains that this is what happens at death: 'the dust returns to the earth as it was [the human body], and the spirit returns to God" (Eccl 12:7). This is confirmed by Paul, "away from the body and at home with the Lord" (2 Cor 5:8 ESV). To the Philippians he wrote: "My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better" (Phil 1:23 ESV)' (OzSpen#56).
2. Topic B was introduced by Stan in the guise of being relevant to what Oz said about Heb 9:27 when Stan said: 'The same holds true for Heb 9:27...because we do not get judged immediately after we die, anymore than we see Jesus or God after we die' (StanJ#61). I showed Stan that 'As for Heb 9:27 (NIV), it states, "Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment". What do you want that to mean? You state: "we do not get judged immediately after we die, anymore than we see Jesus or God after we die". This plainly is a false statement. Nowhere in Heb 9:27 (NIV) does it state that people will be "judged immediately after we die". That is your invention. It's eisegesis with your imposing your beliefs on the text. Heb 9:27 (NIV) does state that people will die once and after that face judgment but nowhere does this verse state when that judgment will happen after death. Nowhere. That really is very poor exegesis by you, Stan' (OzSpen#62). I demonstrated to Stan that his interpretation of Heb 9:27 that 'we do not get judged immediately' is adding to what Heb 9:27 states.
3. Thus StanJ abandoned Oz's Topic A.

I'm not holding my breath waiting for you, Stan, to admit that you used a red herring logical fallacy in this instance or to get you to admit that you use this tactic with others. I'll let others expose what you do in inventing your kind of reply, that often does not relate directly to what the other poster stated. Is this how you operate in normal conversation in a church situation?
Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Brothers and sisters in Christ, are you prepared to sing with and endorse ‘When we all get to heaven‘ (Terry Blackwood, Karen Peck & friends)?

Have we presented enough evidence in this thread to demonstrate that heaven is the Christian believer's destiny at death?

I'm ready. Are you?

Oz

 

[justaname]

Brothers and sisters in Christ, are you prepared to sing with and endorse ‘When we all get to heaven‘ (Terry Blackwood, Karen Peck & friends)?

Have we presented enough evidence in this thread to demonstrate that heaven is the Christian believer's destiny at death?

I'm ready. Are you?

Oz

I am ready!

 

[OzSpen]

I am ready!

Thank you my Christian friend for joining with me in acknowledging you are ready for heaven. Can we agree that that means meeting our Saviour - 'at home with the Lord'?

What a wonderful assurance that reaches deep within my heart because it is the sound teaching of Scripture, as I've attempted to show in this thread.

My assurance is found in what Paul stated in Phil 1:23 (NIV), 'I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far'. To depart this life and be with Christ is better by far, but it leaves loved ones here on earth - some of whom do not know the Saviour.

May the Lord help you to encourage others to look to our glorious future that began in this life with eternal salvation.

Oz

 

[justaname]

Thank you my Christian friend for joining with me in acknowledging you are ready for heaven. Can we agree that that means meeting our Saviour - 'at home with the Lord'?

What a wonderful assurance that reaches deep within my heart because it is the sound teaching of Scripture, as I've attempted to show in this thread.

My assurance is found in what Paul stated in Phil 1:23 (NIV), 'I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far'. To depart this life and be with Christ is better by far, but it leaves loved ones here on earth - some of whom do not know the Saviour.

May the Lord help you to encourage others to look to our glorious future that began in this life with eternal salvation.

Oz

Assuredly my brother at home with the Lord is heaven. Without question our Savior will be there!

As I have been able to I interpret we have the first heaven (our atmosphere), the second heaven (outer space), and the third heaven (God's domain). The word translated "heaven" has been used interchangeably depicting these three areas, perhaps referring to all three at once, as I am certain you know it is often rendered in Greek as plural. Stephan and John saw into this third domain. Then we have Paul's description.

2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven-whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows.
3 And I know that this man was caught up into paradise-whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows-
4 and he heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter. - 2 Corinthians 12:2-4

οἶδα ἄνθρωπον ἐν Χριστῷ πρὸ ἐτῶν δεκατεσσάρων, εἴτε ἐν σώματι οὐκ οἶδα, εἴτε ἐκτὸς τοῦ σώματος οὐκ οἶδα, ὁ θεὸς οἶδεν, ἁρπαγέντα τὸν τοιοῦτον ἕως τρίτου οὐρανοῦ. 3 καὶ οἶδα τὸν τοιοῦτον ἄνθρωπον, εἴτε ἐν σώματι εἴτε χωρὶς τοῦ σώματος οὐκ οἶδα, ὁ θεὸς οἶδεν, 4 ὅτι ἡρπάγη εἰς τὸν παράδεισον καὶ ἤκουσεν ἄρρητα ῥήματα ἃ οὐκ ἐξὸν ἀνθρώπῳ λαλῆσαι.

Paul is using both paradise and third heaven in the same reference...

 

[OzSpen]

Assuredly my brother at home with the Lord is heaven. Without question our Savior will be there!

As I have been able to I interpret we have the first heaven (our atmosphere), the second heaven (outer space), and the third heaven (God's domain). The word translated "heaven" has been used interchangeably depicting these three areas, perhaps referring to all three at once, as I am certain you know it is often rendered in Greek as plural. Stephan and John saw into this third domain. Then we have Paul's description.

2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven-whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows.
3 And I know that this man was caught up into paradise-whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows-
4 and he heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter. - 2 Corinthians 12:2-4

οἶδα ἄνθρωπον ἐν Χριστῷ πρὸ ἐτῶν δεκατεσσάρων, εἴτε ἐν σώματι οὐκ οἶδα, εἴτε ἐκτὸς τοῦ σώματος οὐκ οἶδα, ὁ θεὸς οἶδεν, ἁρπαγέντα τὸν τοιοῦτον ἕως τρίτου οὐρανοῦ. 3 καὶ οἶδα τὸν τοιοῦτον ἄνθρωπον, εἴτε ἐν σώματι εἴτε χωρὶς τοῦ σώματος οὐκ οἶδα, ὁ θεὸς οἶδεν, 4 ὅτι ἡρπάγη εἰς τὸν παράδεισον καὶ ἤκουσεν ἄρρητα ῥήματα ἃ οὐκ ἐξὸν ἀνθρώπῳ λαλῆσαι.

Paul is using both paradise and third heaven in the same reference...

justaname,

That's essentially my understanding. However, in this thread, I understood we were discussing the third heaven, the ultimate destiny of believers, which is known as heaven, Paradise, Abraham's bosom, and my Father's house.

 

[justaname]

justaname,

That's essentially my understanding. However, in this thread, I understood we were discussing the third heaven, the ultimate destiny of believers, which is known as heaven, Paradise, Abraham's bosom, and my Father's house.

Yes that is the subject of this thread...referring back the the 2 Corinthians 12:2 from the Bible Knowledge Commentary...

Paul’s indirect reference to himself as a man in Christ showed that he regarded this great experience not as a consequence of inherent worthiness or spiritual excellence but because he was “in Christ.” As such it anticipated what everyone in Christ will one day experience, the presence of Christ in heaven.
This event occurred 14 years earlier, sometime in the years a.d. 42–44 before Paul’s missionary journeys reported in Acts. Paul was raptured (caught up is from the same verb harpazō used in 1 Thes. 4:17 of saints at the Rapture) to the third heaven, the dwelling place of Christ and the saints, which Jesus called paradise (Luke 23:43; cf. Rev. 2:7). Temporal and spatial sensations were absent (whether he was in the body or apart from the body he did not know). What he heard he was forbidden to communicate, possibly because it applied to him alone (cf. Acts 9:16). The experience, however, no doubt contributed to Paul’s conviction that “our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all” (2 Cor. 4:17).

 

[OzSpen]

Yes that is the subject of this thread...referring back the the 2 Corinthians 12:2 from the Bible Knowledge Commentary...

Paul’s indirect reference to himself as a man in Christ showed that he regarded this great experience not as a consequence of inherent worthiness or spiritual excellence but because he was “in Christ.” As such it anticipated what everyone in Christ will one day experience, the presence of Christ in heaven.
This event occurred 14 years earlier, sometime in the years a.d. 42–44 before Paul’s missionary journeys reported in Acts. Paul was raptured (caught up is from the same verb harpazō used in 1 Thes. 4:17 of saints at the Rapture) to the third heaven, the dwelling place of Christ and the saints, which Jesus called paradise (Luke 23:43; cf. Rev. 2:7). Temporal and spatial sensations were absent (whether he was in the body or apart from the body he did not know). What he heard he was forbidden to communicate, possibly because it applied to him alone (cf. Acts 9:16). The experience, however, no doubt contributed to Paul’s conviction that “our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all” (2 Cor. 4:17).

justaname,

What a delightful and insightful exposition! There are special insights here of what awaits the redeemed. This is especially meaningful for me as I have to endure two major disabilities and have had one of them for many years. To have it described as 'our light and momentary troubles' when compared with 'an eternal glory' will be something to enjoy and behold.

Oz

 

[StanJ]

Stan,

My assertions about your using a red herring fallacy are not fallacious but are spot on in their truthfulness. I find the following explanation of a red herring fallacy to be more helpful in understanding what you do. Let's examine what you do, based on this explanation of the red herring by the Nizkor Project.


This is what you do over and over with others and me on this forum. This is an example of Stan's red herring with me, using this Nizkor Project explanation:

• Oz was discussing topic A: "The fact remains that this is what happens at death: 'the dust returns to the earth as it was [the human body], and the spirit returns to God" (Eccl 12:7). This is confirmed by Paul, "away from the body and at home with the Lord" (2 Cor 5:8 ESV). To the Philippians he wrote: "My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better" (Phil 1:23 ESV)' (OzSpen#56).
• Topic B was introduced by Stan in the guise of being relevant to what Oz said about Heb 9:27 when Stan said: 'The same holds true for Heb 9:27...because we do not get judged immediately after we die, anymore than we see Jesus or God after we die' (StanJ#61). I showed Stan that 'As for Heb 9:27 (NIV), it states, "Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment". What do you want that to mean? You state: "we do not get judged immediately after we die, anymore than we see Jesus or God after we die". This plainly is a false statement. Nowhere in Heb 9:27 (NIV) does it state that people will be "judged immediately after we die". That is your invention. It's eisegesis with your imposing your beliefs on the text. Heb 9:27 (NIV) does state that people will die once and after that face judgment but nowhere does this verse state when that judgment will happen after death. Nowhere. That really is very poor exegesis by you, Stan' (OzSpen#62). I demonstrated to Stan that his interpretation of Heb 9:27 that 'we do not get judged immediately' is adding to what Heb 9:27 states.
• Thus StanJ abandoned Oz's Topic A.

I'm not holding my breath waiting for you, Stan, to admit that you used a red herring logical fallacy in this instance or to get you to admit that you use this tactic with others. I'll let others expose what you do in inventing your kind of reply, that often does not relate directly to what the other poster stated. Is this how you operate in normal conversation in a church situation?
Oz

And this is my point. You seem to think you alone dictate what replies contain, and you would be wrong. I addressed you and added my own. Too bad if that is not acceptable but that is your problem not mine. If you don't understand then say so, but stop using fallacious assertions, as they simply discredit you.
Your denials with NO support whatsoever are quite evident. We are NOT judged immediately after death and we do not go to God immediately after death, and you have NOT supported ANY of your assertion with sound hermeneutical exegesis, just disingenuous misdirection and strawmen.

 

[StanJ]

Brothers and sisters in Christ, are you prepared to sing with and endorse ‘When we all get to heaven‘ (Terry Blackwood, Karen Peck & friends)?

Have we presented enough evidence in this thread to demonstrate that heaven is the Christian believer's destiny at death?

I'm ready. Are you?

Oz

You have presented nothing that supports your position in a sound hermeneutical fashion. Singing a song won't make it a reality.

 

[OzSpen]

And this is my point. You seem to think you alone dictate what replies contain, and you would be wrong. I addressed you and added my own. Too bad if that is not acceptable but that is your problem not mine. If you don't understand then say so, but stop using fallacious assertions, as they simply discredit you.
Your denials with NO support whatsoever are quite evident. We are NOT judged immediately after death and we do not go to God immediately after death, and you have NOT supported ANY of your assertion with sound hermeneutical exegesis, just disingenuous misdirection and strawmen.

You've given me another red herring. You claim 'Your denials with No support whatsoever are quite evident'. This is baloney because I gave you an example of what you did with Heb 9:27. I've given ample support with evidence, but you are not listening.

Bye, Oz

 

[OzSpen]

You have presented nothing that supports your position in a sound hermeneutical fashion. Singing a song won't make it a reality.

Singing a song to confirm 'What a day that will be in heaven/paradise' was meant to be my finale to this thread.

Bye, Bye, Stan!

Oz

 

[StanJ]

Thank you my Christian friend for joining with me in acknowledging you are ready for heaven. Can we agree that that means meeting our Saviour - 'at home with the Lord'?

What a wonderful assurance that reaches deep within my heart because it is the sound teaching of Scripture, as I've attempted to show in this thread.

My assurance is found in what Paul stated in Phil 1:23 (NIV), 'I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far'. To depart this life and be with Christ is better by far, but it leaves loved ones here on earth - some of whom do not know the Saviour.

May the Lord help you to encourage others to look to our glorious future that began in this life with eternal salvation.

Oz

If the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus, and He is returning to His church to give them that, then why would you think you're going to heaven to be with Him when you die, when He clearly stated when He left, that He would return for us?

 

[StanJ]

Singing a song to confirm 'What a day that will be in heaven/paradise' was meant to be my finale to this thread.

Bye, Bye, Stan!

Oz

You've had so many finales on this thread, that it's hard to take you seriously at all. I'll believe it when I don't see anymore posts from you.

 

[StanJ]

You've given me another red herring. You claim 'Your denials with No support whatsoever are quite evident'. This is baloney because I gave you an example of what you did with Heb 9:27. I've given ample support with evidence, but you are not listening.

Bye, Oz

No, you denied what I said, but gave NO support, like you always do. The baloney emanates from your fingers brother.